Hackford & Hackford

In *Hackford & Hackford*, the wife sought a property adjustment order from the husband, contending that his business constituted an asset for division. The husband argued that the application should be dismissed as it was not just and equitable to make such an order, particularly as his business had been valued at nil. The wife also raised an application for the judge to recuse himself due to apprehended bias, citing comments made about the business's value and adverse findings in an earlier judgment. The proceedings were heard by Hannam J in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether it was just and equitable to make a property adjustment order given the absence of valuable assets and the parties' separation of financial affairs for nearly a decade. Secondly, the court had to consider the wife's application for recusal, applying the two-step test to assess whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the judge.

Hannam J dismissed the wife's application for property adjustment, finding that it was not just and equitable to make an order. This conclusion was informed by the expert valuation of the husband's business at nil value and the significant period of time that had elapsed since the parties separated their financial affairs. Regarding the recusal application, the judge also dismissed it, finding that the wife's contentions did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias according to the established legal test. The wife's amended application for an adjustment of the parties' property interests was therefore dismissed.